ability and qualifications around performance. when i looked at my grandson and nine granddaughters, and i have got six grandchildren, three grandsons and three granddaughters, i want each of them to have the same chance to succeed at whatever they want to do. in life, as we all know, there are no guarantees of success. not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. but everyone is entitled to a chance. by committing ourselves to that principle, we are renewing our commitment to the american values our service members fight and die to defend.

as secretary, i have gone to bethesda to visit wounded warriors. when i have gone to arlington to bury our dead, there is no distinction that is made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform. they serve, at they or wounded, and they in die right next to each other. the time has come to recognize that reality. by opening up more opportunities for are men and women in uniform, we are making our military stronger and we make america stronger. we deeply honor all of this past generations of combat soldiers and marines who fought and died for our freedom.

in many ways their sacrifice has ensured that the next greatest generation will be one of men and women who will fight and die together to protect this nation. that is what freedom is all about. >> thank you, mr. secretary. today we are acting to expand the opportunities for women to serve in the united states armed forces and to better align our policies with the experiences we have had over the past decade of war. ultimately, we are acting to strengthen the force. congress acted first in 1948 by legislating that women became a permanent part of the armed forces. last year, as the secretary mentioned, we acted to open

thousands of mission-essential occupations at more echelons and more ground combat units. after months of work, the joint chiefs and i recently submitted to the secretary our unanimous recommendation to rescind the direct combat exclusion role for women. in so doing, we are acting to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. the joint chiefs share a common cause on the needed to start this now and to do it right. we are committed to a purposeful and principled approach, specifically, we would extend opportunities to wick in a way that would maintain readiness. and we will uphold the trust and confidence of the american people as we go forward. our nation demands no less. we'll also integrate women in a

way that enhances opportunity for everyone. this means setting clear standards of for everyone in all occupations based on what it takes to do the job. it also means that ensuring these jobs are gender neutral. as we introduce women to closed occupations we must make sure there is a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned in the leadership positions in order to sustain the positions overtime. these patrols will guide the work ahead. -- these principles will guide to the work aheadwe'll expand the number of units to those units this year. so we can start assigning personnel to previously closed occupations and they will take

the time needed to do the work without compromising the principles i just mentioned. some specialties and ratings shall remain exceptions. the services will bear the responsibility for providing the thorough analysis needed to better understand and better articulate what is best for the joint force and the women who serve in it. at the same time, women will continue to serve with distinct in and out of -- with distinction in and out of combat on land, at sea, an in the air. we all wear the same uniform and most importantly, we all take the same oath. thank you, the secretary and i will now sign the document. \[applause]

[applause] ok, now onward. go ahead. >> mr. chairman, over course of your career, based on your experience the you talk about what you think is realistic as we look ahead to the next couple of years. have you considered the physical demands of the job, do you expect you will see anywhere near 100% of jobs open or what are the realistic expectations that you have based on what you have learned over the past year? mr. secretary, on a separate issue, north korea, i'm sure you know, can you talk about what if any, military

preparations are maybe needed over the next couple of weeks to prepare for will be taken? >> to answer about the question of what i see happening. with the direct combat in place, i saw a ticker that says women about to be allowed to serve in combat. we're way beyond that. that is the point here. women are serving in combat and have been. when i got to baghdad in 2003, i hopped into the humvee and i asked the driver who he was and where he was from. i side who are you and she said she's amanda. i said ok. from that point that i realized

something had changed and it was time to do something about it. what we've done though, is by eliminating direct combat exclusion provision, the burden used to be -- the burden used to say, why should a woman serve in a particular specificity? now, it is why shouldn't she serve? the services now -- with that now as the reversed paradigm to come back overtime and with careful analysis and make sure we have the standards right in other words -- if we're going to keep them close they have to explain right. -- they have to explain why. i think there will be the right amount of scrutiny on that. we have to be the most ready force that we can possibly be. i don't know how that will sort out but i'm eager to begin the journey. >> one thing that i've been

struck by, you know, in almost 50 years since i served in the military. to go out now and see women perform in roles and doing a great job at it, i think it encouraged me and i think it encouraged all of us that everybody should have a chance. you should be able to perform in any mission if they can meet the qualifications. i think we've been talking and working this issue for a while but i think we both share the feeling that what we're seeing in the men and women in uniform

are just outstanding individuals and make a hell contribution to this country and they are willing to put their lives on the line. their lives on the line then we that they want. with regards to north korea, we are very concerned with north korea's continuing behavior. what they said in these -- in needlessly provocative. if they go forward with the kind of tests they are talking about, it again, representing a violation of the u.s. security resolutions and a violation of the national law. -- u n security resolutions and a violation of international law. we made it very clear that they

have a choice. they have a choice to -- between trying to become a member of the international family by negotiating a way to resolve the issues that concern the international community and try to do what they can to improve the status of their people. or to engage in this kind of provocative behavior which in the end, will do nothing, nothing other than jeopardize the hope for peace. the united states, we are fully prepared, we are prepared to deal with any actions from the north koreans but i hope they determine it is better to make a choice to become part of our team. -- part of the international

family. >> are there any signs that a rocket launch is eminent? >> i certainly follow the intelligence closely. indications. but that doesn't tell you much. they have the capability, frankly, to conduct these tests in a way that makes it difficult to determine whether or not they are doing it. that this policy change is a great policy change back in 1948, at the end of don't ask don't tell. will this be as challenging or less challenging because of the major shifts the military has to adapt to? this is not on auto pilot, there overcome. >> sure. that's why you see the time intervals that we've asked for

and the secretary has given us. one of the things we want to make sure we do, tony, we talk about learning the lessons of the last 10 years of war. we want to make sure we don't learn the wrong lessons. what i mean by that is, the kind of warfare we're involved in now -- you're generally back there frequently, sometimes every day you come back to the base where you have a mess hall, you have housing units and showering units. one thing we want to do with the time that the secretary has given us is make sure that the standards we develop and accept and measure are standards that apply in any particular kind of convict not just one kind of -- conflict not just one kind of conflict. that's why we want to make sure we have the standards right so anyone who makes the standard can serve in that particular

occupation skill. >> do you see any major roadblocks here over next year or two? >> in this country, as the president himself pointed out in his inaugural speech, we've been on a long journey. a long journey in achieving equality. there have been some tough challenges along the road in facing every barrier, whether it was racial barriers, which we've overcome, the don't ask don't tell, dealing with women, all of these have not come easy. they have all required a lot of sacrifice, a lot of work, a lot of dedication, a lot of leadership. i think that is the case here.

we have the experience of women being in the service. we've seen them in combat as the general pointed out. i think that gives us a head start. i feel very confident we can make this work. >> what are the necessary gender -- \[indiscernible] -- in gender-based areas? >> the issue of that is the issue of standards. if you think about the difference between counterinsurgency and conflict on the current peninsula. -- on the korean peninsula. it is a different environment that requires a different level of physical stamina. we want to make sure we get the standards right. we don't want to over engineer them either, they ought to be fair. then we allow individuals of any sex to compete for the

position. >> is it just physical standards? >> no, it not just physical standards. the standards we have for occupational -- for these military occupations or the military calls them ratings they including the from mental standards to physical standards. but physical standards are the one that people focus on. >> what about privacy? >> we can fix out privacy. -- we can figure out privacy. we figured that out right from the start. by the way, desert shield, desert storm 1991 h we did live in that environment where we were somewhat in the zests and we figured out privacy. -- we were somewhat nomadic and we figured out privacy. we can do that. >> the fact is, women are now in the ranks and that was the concern of the time. but we've been able to adapt to

that situation. women are fighter pilots, air force, navy, have moved in that direction. marines and the army obviously are going to move in the same direction. they are going to be -- there will have to be some adjustments in some situations. based on the experience that we already have we make those adjustments. >> it sounds like there might be combat operational situations where women might be excluded from still. what would be the reasons for that? what sorts of operations -- >> i wouldn't put in the terms of operations. as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict.

we really need to have standards that apply all of those. importantly though, if we decide a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't make it the burden is on the service to come back and explain why is it that high? does it have to be that high? with the direct combat exclusion we never to do have that conversation. >> your personal opinion as if women maybe able to serve, especially those as navy seals? >> if you look back at what i've said when i was the chief staff, i think we all believe that thereby women who can meet those standards. the other part of the equation, of course, is in order to account for their safety and success in those kinds of units. we have to have enough of them so they have mentors and leaders above them.

you don't want to take one woman who can meet a standard and put her in a particular unit. the issue there wouldn't be privacy it would be where to have upward mobility if she's one of one. we have to work both the standards and the kind of critical mass, if you will, to make this work. that is our commitment. >> by the way, that's why i asked services to provide a plan that would be presented in may of this year. it will point out exactly how this is to be implemented. >> briefly about president obama's involvement with this discussion, how hutch was he involved? -- how much was he involved? >> we had the opportunity to meet with the president usually every week, depend on his schedule. but we met with him individually to go over issues. over the past year, i have

regularly briefed the president on what was going on with regards to this issue that we had opened up the additional positions that we're looking at providing even more opportunities to women. he was very supportive. >> i would like to add, he was supportive and always encouraged us to ensure that whatever we did, it made the force better and made and assured readiness. he is alert to the fact that the armed forces have to be ready. >> is it possible that -- earlier you said it was your experience traveling around and seeing these women in these positions? that is since becoming defense secretary,it was in the last 18 months -- >> well, at the c.i.a., i tell you that, you know, we were at a point where close to 50% of the people working there are women.

for me it was really reassuring to see young men and women were equally dedicated to the intelligence services. then coming here to the army and going out and seeing that firsthand, it was again, something for me, was a special experience. i thought, you know, america stands for giving young people those kinds of opportunities. if they can do the job, if they can meet the standards, if they can meet, you know, the qualifications that are involved here, there is no reason why they should not have a chance. that is a fundamental belief of me and i think that is a fundamental belief of the american people. >> today, the british, french, and the dutch are pulling their citizens out of benghazi saying

there is a threat. is the u.s. going to help at all getting citizens out and because you certainly would want civilians to be safe. what is this threat in benghazi? secondly, on algeria, can you update us on who may have been responsible? do you view that they have rejoined forces? do you think there is involvement as what secretary clinton said yesterday? >> on benghazi, it is no mystery that it is a dangerous situation there. everybody in that area, i think is very concerned that they

can't provide the security necessary to protect people in those places. i think that is why these countries have made the decision that they have made. as far as i know, we have not been asked to participate in moving anybody out of benghazi. >> i will pick up the rest of the question. the way to think about the north africa and west africa is a syndicate of groups who come together when it is convenient to them in order to advance their cause. sometimes their cause is terrorism, sometimes it is trafficking. in algeria and mali, it is aqim and there is a group out there

and they work together when it is convenient to them. what we have to be alert to is as we look at the individual groups or the individual countries we have to acknowledge the connective tissue there. that takes us to a regional strategy not necessary a country specific strategy. >> with regard to algeria and what happened there. the qim did take credit for what took place. as of this moment, have not been able to look at the specifics of who was involved, who took place. we understand the algerians are questioning two individuals that they were able to capture during this operation. so we're hoping we will get

better information from them specifically as to who was involved. >> if i could quickly follow-up. you and the president have said in the cases of benghazi and algeria that you would go after the perpetrators, that americans were killed. how do you do that in north africa when you have this mix? can you still promise that you're going to get the perpetrators of these two incidents that killed americans? >> i can assure you, if we find out who the perpetrators were we're going to go after them. that will be the first challenge is to determine precisely who was involved here. americans were killed. we don't stand by when americans are killed and not take action. without getting into specifics we will take whatever action is necessary to go after these people.

>> you both said this decision will make the military stronger. there will be and there are critics of that premises. can you give us examples on how putting women in the most physically demanding situations will make our military forces stronger? >> let me not limit it to military. i graduated from west point in 1974. it was an all-male institution. i came back in 1976 to get married and i watched the first class of women enter. i wondered what that would be like. i went back to teach and found the academy a better place than it was when i was there. it became better in almost every way. it was just a better place.

and i attribute to the fact that we opened up the academy to women. secondly, we had this ongoing issue with sexual harassment, sexual assault, i believe it is because we have separate classes of military personnel, at some level. it is far more complicated than that. but when you have one part of the population that is designated as warriors then you have another part designated as something else i think that disparity establishes a psychology that in some cases led to that environment. i believe that the more we treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally. >> is there any thought in changing the selective service requirements so that young women at age 18 will have to --

if we were to reintroduce the draft -- and is it safe to say this was your idea to go forward with these changes? >> no, when it comes to an issue like this, this was a team effort. it was, you know, the joint chiefs and i, we have the opportunity to meet almost every other week. sometimes we did meet every week in the tank to talk about these issues. opening up opportunities for men and women in the military has always been something we've talked about. they expressed an interest in it, i expressed an interest in it and we worked together to ensure that we take steps to do that. i, basically -- general dempsey and i looked at each other and i said look, we both know that

we want to be able to open these opportunities up. but i want to make sure that you and the military, you know, really are the one who is are the movers with regards to this idea. they got to support it, they have to back it up. to their credit, they are the ones that came forward with the recommendation. i was very pleased when i got that recommendation because it was a fulfillment to what we talked about and what we want to achieve. with regard to selective service, that is not our operation. i don't know who the hell controls that, if you want to know the truth. whoever does they have to exercise some judgment based on what we just did. >> what specialties were open

today, none, we just made the announcement. give us a break we need time to sort it out. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> what is the best 24 policeman? >> the best training you can get to become a really good police of a cert is walking a fourth beat. you learn how develop sources, you learn how to develop intelligence information, you learn how to leverage relationships and that is the key. people in a community trust you, they will tell you when the things that are happening that are not yet crime so you can intervene and they will tell you all about how to do it. i have really learned the most in my career from those relationships. >> from high school dropout to

single mother to the youngest police chief in washington, d.c., more with cathy lanier sunday night. >> on the next "washington journal," how republicans in congress should proceed over the next four years. then we will look at the state of gay-rights in the u.s. and after that, we will discuss the ongoing -- the effect the ongoing drought is having plus, your e-mails, phone calls, and tweets on "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. on cspan. >> louisiana governor bobby jindal called on changes in his party. he spoke last night at the republican national committee winter meeting in charlotte,

north carolina. we will have more live coverage of the rnc meeting later today. >> we are honored and blessed -- we are honored and blessed to have governor bobby jindal with us tonight. we have a great partnership that goes back quite a few years. and i am just thrilled to have a partner like bobby at the rga. i think you all know that even among republicans, it is extra special when you know you are dealing with a man of his word that makes a promise and keeps the promise. somebody that you can believe in from the very start and i have to tell you, i think we've got a great theme that we can build on in this party. it's called the 10th amendment. [applause]

because of barack obama, because of barack obama, washington is broken. they have proven nearly incapable of solving the most basic problems facing america. i think it is time to send a lot of these issues to the 30 governors in our country, the republican governors in our country, that have proven the ability to solve big problems, balanced budgets, speak to republicans, democrats, independents. have had great success and our party. unfortunately, we sometimes do a lousy job of bragging about it but there is a shining star in louisiana and somebody who will be a great partner moving forward and making sure we win a big race in new jersey and a big race in virginia and the

head of that effort and a partner of mine moving forward is the great governor of louisiana, please welcome to the republican national committee, governor bobby jindal. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you all, very much. thank you for that warm welcome. thank you for that generous introduction and thank you all for your leadership here, for our party, for the entire country. i understand you've got a barn burner of a collection of your own coming up tomorrow. [laughter] i sure hope you make it. one piece of advice as you start gearing up for your campaign -- i don't think you should use that hold orca thing for your

voter turnout tomorrow. [boo [] i'm just having a little fun. i want to thank reince preibus for his leadership, is service, is great leadership of the rnc, has done a great job, let's give them a round of applause. [applause] as a point of personal privilege, want to take a moment to thank the members from my home state of louisiana. we are joined by our party chairman who has been a great partner. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] we also have our national committeewoman and state representative who does a phenomenal job representing our state. [applause] i said ross is no longer the

most attractive person delays -- in louisiana body does a great job as well. [applause] i plan to talk about the big picture tonight and i plan to say some things that may challenge your assumptions. you may agree with all that and you may not agree with all that, that is okay. ours is a party that can handle an honest discussion and an honest debate. let's be honest, after losing two presidential elections in a row, there is certainly time for some candid and honest discussion with our party. the first concept want to talk about is simply this -- america is not the federal government. [applause] take time to let that thought releasing in. america is not the federal government. in fact, america is not much about government at all. america's government is one of those things that you have to have but you sure don't want to much of it. it is like your family visiting

over the holidays. i've got to be careful, my wife is here. this is the polar opposite of the political debate in our country today we've got one party that wants to be in charge of the federal government's of they can expand and another party that wants to be in charge of the federal government so they can get it under control. i am here to tell you that as a terrible debate. it is a debate fought entirely on our opponents terms, a debate about which party can better manage the federal government is a small and shortsighted debate. if our vision is not bigger than that, we simply don't deserve to win. our public discourse today -- america is defined by government, by the latest grooves that occur in washington, d.c. if you landed here from outer space and watched tv for a week or read the newspapers, you would come to the conclusion that washington is the hubble of america. what happens in washington is what drives the success or

failure of america. in addition to washington,, you would say there are outlying states but they are at jaunt to the federal government. this is not the idea of america. but, this is what america will become if we do not reorient our way of thinking right now. as our government grows ever larger, it will become what america's all about if we let it. this is our challenge, this is what we are here for. look at the debates that have dominated washington, d.c. the last couple of weeks. we add the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the joe biden gun- control panel. we have allowed these to take center stage. we are falling into a sideshow trap. all these debates are about government. government is government power or the leading lady or leading man in our country today agreed to -- today's conservatism is

wrapped up in solving the city's mass that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs. we seem to have an obsession. this is the long game for us to apply. today it is the fiscal cliff and to market will be the fiscal -- and tomorrow it will be the fiscal armageddon. our government has already gone off the fiscal cliff. it happened years ago and it happens every year for many years. today's conservatism is in love with zero. we think if we can unite behind a proposal to cut the debt and put together a spreadsheet and power point and a tv ad, call will be well. this obsession with zeroes is focused on government. by doing this, we sent a not so subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the farm

economy of washington, d.c. instead of that really come out here in charlotte, new orleans, and cheyenne. we as republicans have to accept government number crunching. it is not the answer to our nation's problems. we've got to face one cold hard fact -- washington is a dysfunctional that any budget proposed based on fiscal sanity will be deemed not series by the media and it will fail in the united states senate and will not make it to the president's desk where he would veto it anyway. any serious proposal to restrain government growth is immediately deemed non-serious in washington, d.c. the balanced budget amendment is called non-serious as are term limits, capping federal growth to the growth of the private sector economy is deemed not serious in washington, d.c. anything serious is deemed not

serious in washington d.c.. when senator obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, he said he was doing so because the national debt was at an outrageous $8 trillion. he clarified for a fact -- $8 trillion, trillion with a 't'. now our national debt is over $16 trillion and climbing, larger than our tire economy and he is not a word about it at all. he calls a progress. his campaign slogan said it is forward. i've got news for the president, if washington's debt is going forward, america's economy is going backward. instead of worrying about managing the economy, it is time to address how we can lead america out where she can once again become the land of opportunity and once again become a place of growth and opportunity. we should put all our eggs in that basket as conservatives and

republicans. we certainly do need folks in washington, d.c. to devote themselves to stop as president from taking this country so far off the ledge that we can i get back. we must stop what is rapidly becoming the bankrupting of our federal government. we, as conservatives, must dedicate our energies endeavors to growing america, to growing the american economy, to showing the younger generation how america can win the future. our task is not to grow government but to grow the middle class. if more government or the answer to our problems, our economy would be booming right now. you cannot hire enough government workers were given of taxpayer money to your taxes to allow green energy company to great prosperity. that path is a disaster. balancing the government books is not what matters most. government is not the and all and be all. the health of america is not about government at all.

balancing the books as a nice goal but that is not our primary objective. our objective is to grow the private sector. need to focus our efforts and ideas to grow the american economy, not the government economy. i will talk about a couple of other points but if you take nothing else away from what i say, understand this -- we must not become the party of austerity. we must not be the party of austerity. we must be the party of growth. we know the government is out of control and the public knows that, too, yet we just lost an election. we cannot afford to fight on our terms. the republican party must become the party of growth, the party for a prosperous future based on economic growth, an opportunity based on every community in this great nation and not based in washington, d.c. we have fall into a trap of believing of the world revolves around washington and the economy is based there.

government could grow so big it will take us all down with it. if our end goal is to better manage the disaster that is the federal government, count me out. i'm not signing up for that. that is not a goal worth saying. which one of you wants to sign up to help manage the slow decline of united states of america? i sure don't. that is what we have democrats for. [laughter] [applause] the democrats promised to be the party of more from government. they are actually the party of less. they are the party of economic contraction, austerity, and less for the economy. the republican party is the party of more. as margaret thatcher observed, first you must win the argument, then you can win the election. it's time for all of us to remember this -- we are not in

this just to win elections three we're in this to make america the greatest she can be, to make america the prosperous land of opportunity she can be. [applause] to do this, we will have to win some elections but first we must win the argument if this election taws every -- anything, we will not win elections simply by trashing the other side. we must paint the picture of what america can be and how bright america's future can be. that brings me to my second point -- what does this future look like? how we win this argument? for starters, we have to recalibrate the compass of conservatism. we don't need a change -- we don't need to change what we believe as conservatives. we do need to reorient our focus to the place where conservatism for arrives in the real world beyond the washington beltway. we must lay out the contrast

between liberalism top-down government solutions and our bottom of real-world philosophy. we believe in creating abundance, not redistributing wealth. we should let the other side buildup washington while we prepare -- what we promote entrepreneurs and risk takers and the self-employed woman who was one cell away from hiring her first employee. [applause] let the democrats sell the still power of more federal programs while we promote the rejuvenating power of new businesses. we don't believe top down industrial age government becomes a good idea just because people agree with us or because we are running it. we must focus on the empowerment of citizens, making relevant and different decisions in their communities while democrats self-government that cranks out

1 dumb down answer for the entire country. this means nearly rethinking every social program in washington. very few of them work, in my view, and a one size fits all crowd has had its chance. if any rational human being or to create our government a new today, if you were to start from a blank sheet of paper, we would have about 1/4 of the buildings in washington, about 1/2 of the government workers and washington agreed we would replace most of that with good web sites. we would not dream of taking money out of people's pockets, sending it to washington, d.c., handing it over to politicians and bureaucrats. we would not send out what is left back to the states where it started in order to grow the american economy. what we're doing now to govern ourselves as much as wrong, it

is out of date and it is a failure. we believe in planting the seeds of growth in the fertile soil of your economy, where you live and work and invest in dreams, not in the barren country to washington, d.c. it is worth doing, block granted to the states. if you don't trust the states, maybe washington should not do it at all. we believe solving problems closer to home should always be our first option. we believe hiring others far away is the last and least effective way to meet our social responsibilities to each other. states should not face a moral dilemma when they try to correct their budgets and go through federal rules that stand in their way. while the democrats work on taking more from working americans, we should stand for radically simplify our tax code, not for the benefit of washington, d.c., but to get washington out of the way. what does that mean? that means let's remove all paper by lobbyists.

let's blow up the incentives that washington uses to get behavior from the top down. it should not be complicated for a taxpayer to thought his taxes or live his life without fear of the consequences of his or her choices. when it comes to education, something i care deeply about, let the democrats extol the virtues of are hopelessly antiquated one-size-fits-all factor schools where the child follows the dollars. meanwhile, let us republicans the to the success of child- centered education solutions that meet the needs of the digital age. [applause] these are but a few examples of the way we must fight the battle of ideas. it must be how we win the argument. one thing we've got to get straight right now -- washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and export of our states. as republicans, it is time to

quit arguing around the edges of this current system. that brings me to my third point -- i want to shift gears and speak to changes i think we must make if we need to win elections. i'm not one of those who believes we need to abandon or change our principles. this observation badly disappoints many of our friends like liberals in the national media. real change means supporting abortion on demand for the national media. for them, real change means abandoning traditional marriage. for them, real change means embracing government growth as the key to american success story for them, real change means agreeing to higher taxes every year to pay for government expansion and real change means endorsing the enlightened policies of european socialism. that is what real change looks like to "the new york times." that is crazy talk.

america has one liberal party, it does not need another one. [applause] government spending still does not grow our economy. american weakness on the world stage still will not lead to peace for it i still believe that higher taxes still does not create prosperity for all and more government does not grow jobs. if you happen to believe in higher taxes and more debt and more government spending, if you believe in weakness abroad and if you believe in taking guns from law-abiding citizens, i might suggest you are probably at the wrong dinner tonight. [laughter] [applause] the second thing i would tell you is that you already have a party that is well represented in washington, d.c. the republican party does not need to change our principles. we might need to change just about everything else.

here are seven things i believe we must change if we are to amass a following were the of our principles to win elections and lead america as we deserve. first, we've got to stop looking backwards. we've got to boldly show what the future can look like with the free-market policies we believe them. many of the republican governors are doing just that. conserve of ideals are aspirational. the stuff about the good old days as heartwarming but the battle of ideas must be waged in the future. the second thing we've got to do is compete for every single vote, 47% and the 53% and any other combination that adds up to 100%. [applause] president obama and the democrats can continue to divide america into groups of warring communities with competing interests but we as republicans will have none of it. we will go after every vote and we will work to unite all americans.

third, we must reject a density policies? ours should be colorblind society. we should pursue that idea with a vigor. it is corrosive to the great american melting pot and must rejected for we must reject the notion that demography is a detriment. we must treat all people as individuals rather than members of special interest groups. [applause] i made this observation -- the first of the getting the voters to like this is to demonstrate that we like them. the fourth thing we got to do -- [applause] the fourth thing is we've got to stop being stupid. for arious, it is time new republican party that talks like adults. it is time to articulate our plans and vision for america in real terms. it is no 63 at a number of

republicans that damage the brand this year with the offensive and bizarre -- it is no mystery that a number of republicans and damaged the brand this year with offensive and bizarre statements. [applause] the fifth thing is we've got to stop insulting the intelligence of voters. we need to trust the smarts of the american people. [applause] down got to stop talking to them and stop dumbing down our ideas and stop producing everything to mindless slogans and tag lines. [applause] we must have the courage of our convictions and we must be willing to provide details in describing our views. the sixth thing we have to do is we must quit big. we are not the party of big anything. we must not be the party that protects just the well off. we've got to be the party that shows all americans out they can thrive.

we will help the middle class and poor folks join the middle class. we are a populist party and in need to make that clear to every american [applause] we've got to focus on real people outside of washington, d.c., not all lobbyists or people inside washington. we got to stop competing with democrats for the job of government management. we got to lay out ideas back and on least a dynamic abilities of the american people. we need an equal opportunity society, one which government does not see his job as picking winners and losers. think about this -- where do you go if he won a special favor? government. where do you go if you want a tax break? the government. where do we go if you want a handout to de-government. this must stop. government is the unleveller of the playing field. this is a pact with ford for the

american party that honors our principles and the american people and one that will help us not only when the argument but help us win elections. let me conclude by making this observation -- america is facing her greatest joys in the hours to come very weak and either go down the government that or we can go down the american past. the lesson is to turn the contest into the present. we believe as conservatives that freedom incentivizes ordinary people to do extraordinary things and that makes america an exceptional nation. in the last few years, it has become fashionable to talk about american exceptionalism, the idea that this country is better and different than any other on the planet. as republicans, we have criticized president obama for not believing in embracing american exceptionalism. it is imperative that we promote

american exceptionalism and a fine. -- and define it. many commentators talk about the peaceful transfer of power we have in this country. let us not get confused -- even as we must never take for granted peaceful transition of power, america is not great because of the design of our governments. nation is not exceptional because of the commitment to free elections. the genius of america is our strength and power and growth that comes from the individual actions of our people. [applause] government does not order greatness. government does not order greatness. government cannot command. are free individuals, taking risks, building businesses, inventing things from thin air, and passing the immutable value from one generation to the next. that is the root of america's greatness. [applause]

that is our mission is to build a new republican party. we must shift the ambition of our conservative moment away from managing government and towards the mission of growth. it falls to us to show the younger generation the wisdom and a great benefit of the american path. it falls to was to unleash a new dawning of the american dream. it is the dream my parents came to this country for, a dream of growth, prosperity, and equal opportunity. it is our responsibility to seize this opportunity and lead our country into a new era of possibility, progress, and prosperity. it falls to us to take the principles of freedom and apply them to the future. make no mistake, i am not calling for introspection. now's the time for action. i'm calling for us to get busy winning the argument, then after that, winning the next election

[applause] thank you, god bless you and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> we will have more live coverage of the republican national committee winter meeting in charlotte, north carolina. this afternoon, reince preibus will lay out the product -- the party priorities at live coverage begins at 1:00 eastern. in a moment, we'll look at the day's news and take your calls on "washington journal." later this morning, the discussion on race and present obama's second term at 10:00 eastern. coming up in 45 minutes, we will talk with bill kristol of "the weekly standard." then we will talk about gay rights in the u.s. and later, the effect that the current drought is having on the